Small Wars Councilhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/
Professional dialog on Small Wars.enThu, 24 May 2018 17:46:33 GMTvBulletin10http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/images/misc/rss.pngSmall Wars Councilhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/
Terror attacks: how psychological research can help improve the emergency responsehttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27253-Terror-attacks-how-psychological-research-can-help-improve-the-emergency-response&goto=newpost
Wed, 23 May 2018 10:03:58 GMTAn interesting article via the UK academic website 'The Conversation' on a topic for law enforcement and first responders:Terror attacks: how psychological research can help improve the emergency response. Perhaps the military have thought this through before. Their key questions:

Quote:

So in this age of unpredictability, how can the emergency services prepare themselves to respond to a terror attack...This begs the question of how the emergency services can best prepare for terror attacks when modern day terrorism is becoming less and less predictable?

(Ends with) Manchester provides a key lesson in identifying how the gap between hypothetical plans and the reality of incidents is widening. Taken together, it is hoped that the future of emergency training embeds these lessons, providing a greater focus on the need for flexible planning and dynamic decision making.

I could not identify a suitable existing thread for this.
]]>davidbfpohttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27253-Terror-attacks-how-psychological-research-can-help-improve-the-emergency-responseBack to the future, ideological warfarehttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27249-Back-to-the-future-ideological-warfare&goto=newpost
Sun, 20 May 2018 20:18:36 GMTAfter years of claiming it will not interfere in the politics of other countries, China has openly changed the game. During China's 19th National Congress last October, Xi basically assumes the role of dictator (ruler for life), and integrates Xi's thought into the Communist Party Constitution. Xi's thoughts includes endorsing Marxism with 21st Century characteristics. He has dismissed democracy as a failed system in subsequent public statements. Unfortunately for those of us that hope for peace, history tells us that any nation that has embraced Marxism as a national ideology has aggressively attempted to impose political control over their neighbors and in the case of the USSR, they attempted to establish Marxist based proxy governments globally. At least since 2008, China has interfered in the internal affairs of other countries despite claims to the contrary. China is now openly using a range of coercion and economic incentives to strongly influence, if not out right control, the decisions other countries make regarding their economy and security decisions. In short, they're eroding their sovereignty. For a nation that claims to be promoting peace, those words ring hollow when one examines how China is militarizing the South China Sea, militarily attempting to resolve border disputes with India and Bhutan, and militarily threatening Taiwan.

At the height of his power, China's Xi Jinping moves to embrace Marxism

Quote:

A slickly produced five-episode educational show titled "Marx Was Right" was broadcast on television screens across China. While in Germany, Beijing gifted a giant statue of Marx to his hometown in Trier.

The Chinese government's Marxism push comes at a time when they are trying to simultaneously portray themselves as the defenders of capitalism, including in several high-profile speeches by Xi at international economic forums.

I suspect China will stumble over its contradictions as it continues to overreach with its coercive activities around the globe. Either China will modify how its employs its power, or sadly push it to the point of armed conflict. Armed conflict could range from a regional spat to a major world war. Part of me suspects China seeks a minor military engagement to test its military, but that could prove embarrassing for a military that hasn't seen combat in decades.

Quote:

"He sees an opportunity to assume global leadership and needs a theoretical foundation for writing new rules of a world order -- but shockingly he chose the Marxist banner."

The comment below is probably an accurate assessment,

Quote:

"China's 'free trade' is based on building a wall around itself and then takes advantage of freedoms in other countries," he said.

Also sadly true,

Quote:

"Here you have a Chinese strongman who just secured lifelong tenure, asserting influence not only through the so-called Belt-and-Road global trade scheme but also taking on the Western model as whole," he said.

"But whatever China is doing is overshadowed by Trump... whose actions are taking pressure off of China -- as everyone is trying to decipher his next tweet," he added. "It's a very fragmented West -- I don't think there is reflection, let alone a united response to an ideological challenge from Xi."

We can't tweet our way through troubled seas. Three of the world's superpowers are ruled by egomaniacs, and at least two of them of have an aggressive strategy to remake the world order. Emotion could over rule reason when push come to shove for any of the three leaders. We're cursed to live in interesting times. The BBC article below points out China is not backing down, and this has implications.

Vietnam has cancelled a major oil project in the South China Sea for the second time in a year, in the wake of Chinese pressure, the BBC has learned.

Multinational companies in Spain and Malaysia supporting this effort will lose millions of dollars based on this decision.

Quote:

China is likely to regard this move as a significant victory. The Vietnamese decision seems to demonstrate that the recent show of force in the South China Sea by the United States has not changed Vietnam's strategic calculations.

What used to work in the way of deterrence and dissausion, no longer works, why? Has China's confidence increased to the degree it is willing to risk armed conflict now? Do they perceive the U.S. and its security partners to be too weak to stop China from asserting their illegal claims on other countries?

Quote:

Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines are all coming under pressure from China to concede "joint development" in areas where the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives them sole rights. So far all the South East Asian states have resisted the pressure.

Vietnam has chosen to try to develop its fields alone and the result has been military threats from China and, now, a second climb-down, raising questions over Vietnam's offshore potential.

I also recommending reading the most recent issue of "The National Interest" with its New Cold War cover. In addition to other articles, there are two articles on the state of the U.S. Navy due to under investment that is telling. There is no overnight fix either. Each article presents a different approach to fix it. One focuses on expanding the number of ships, while the other argues this isn't sustainable, so we must simply accept China's new role as a regional hegemon. I think there are a range of other options not discussed, but it is clear that almost two decades of GWOT has put our nation at significant risk, and we have little to show from 17 plus years of counterterrorism.
]]>International PoliticsBill Moorehttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27249-Back-to-the-future-ideological-warfareNew book: Why We Fight by Mike Martinhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27247-New-book-Why-We-Fight-by-Mike-Martin&goto=newpost
Tue, 15 May 2018 12:11:43 GMTThe book 'Why We Fight' is by a British veteran of Afghanistan, now @ Kings War Studies as a Research Fellow and the author of 'An Intimate War: An Oral History of the Helmand Conflict'. So he refers to his talking to Afghan soldiers, alongside his own experiences to argue it is basically status and belonging to a cohesive social group.

The publishers description:

Quote:

Why are we willing to die for our countries? How can ideology persuade someone to blow themselves up? When we go to war, morality, religion and ideology often take the blame. But Mike Martin boldly argues that the opposite is true: rather than driving violence, these things help to reduce it. While we resort to ideas and values to justify or interpret warfare, something else is really propelling us towards conflict: our subconscious desires, shaped by millions of years of evolution. Why We Fight will change the way we think about both violence and ourselves.

The Guardian has a fourteen minute podcast, with the author and two academics:

Quote:

Experts have been fighting about fighting throughout the ages. While theories have emerged to explain why we fight, there isn’t a consensus in the research. In general, theories of war miss the mark for some. So why do we fight? And what can science tell us?

I have asked a USMC Afghan veteran to do a book review (if the publisher is willing). It is on Amazon US & UK, the later has three five star reviews and Frank Ledwidge ends his with:

Quote:

This is an excellent book, and absolutely essential for anyone who wants to know what makes us go to war, and what can hold us back.

There is an existing, closed thread 'How soldiers deal with the job of killing' into which this thread maybe folded one day. See:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...job-of-killing
]]>Trigger Pullerdavidbfpohttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27247-New-book-Why-We-Fight-by-Mike-MartinDonald Trump’s Shadow Warhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27246-Donald-Trump’s-Shadow-War&goto=newpost
Fri, 11 May 2018 16:35:52 GMTStephen Tankel is a US academic and sometime USG adviser. The link is to a recent article which is sub-titled:
---Quote---
The administration has quietly expanded how the U.S. uses military force around the world. The consequences are grave. Why is no one paying attention?
---End Quote---...Stephen Tankel is a US academic and sometime USG adviser. The link is to a recent article which is sub-titled:

Quote:

The administration has quietly expanded how the U.S. uses military force around the world. The consequences are grave. Why is no one paying attention?

There are several telling phrases:

Quote:

But where capacity can be built, political will cannot be. This was especially true in Pakistan and Yemen.(Later) In the meantime, drone strikes have also escalated considerably in Yemen—jumping from 37 in 2016 to over 127 in 2017 according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—and increased in Somalia as well.
(Ends with) Trump has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction: removing policy constraints and reducing oversight of lethal action while pursing a military-centric approach to counterterrorism where operations are divorced from the political-strategic environment in which they are occurring. History tells us this will prove counterproductive and unsustainable.

The article is based on his new book 'With Us and Against Us: How America's Partners Help and Hinder the War on Terror', so far minus any reviews as it is released on May 22nd (in the USA).

]]>Catch-All, GWOTdavidbfpohttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27246-Donald-Trump’s-Shadow-WarPOTUS to award MoH to Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Britt Slabinski (USN, Ret)http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27162-POTUS-to-award-MoH-to-Master-Chief-Petty-Officer-(SEAL)-Britt-Slabinski-(USN-Ret)&goto=newpost
Tue, 08 May 2018 15:15:59 GMT---Quote---
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The White House announced today that President Donald J. Trump will award the Medal of Honor to Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL), Retired, Britt Slabinski for his heroic actions in March 2002 during the Battle of Takur Ghar while serving in Afghanistan.
Master...

Quote:

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The White House announced today that President Donald J. Trump will award the Medal of Honor to Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL), Retired, Britt Slabinski for his heroic actions in March 2002 during the Battle of Takur Ghar while serving in Afghanistan.

Master Chief Slabinski will be awarded the Medal of Honor during a White House ceremony on May 24, 2018 for his actions while leading a team under heavy effective enemy fire in an attempt to rescue teammate Petty Officer First Class Neil Roberts during Operation ANACONDA in 2002. Master Chief Slabinski's selfless actions throughout the 14-hour battle constituted gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.

In the early morning of 4 March 2002, then-Senior Chief Slabinski led a reconnaissance team to its assigned area atop Takur Ghar, a 10,000-foot snow-covered mountain in Afghanistan. An enemy rocket-propelled grenade attack on the insertion helicopter caused Petty Officer Neil Roberts to fall onto the enemy-infested mountaintop below, and forced the damaged helicopter to crash land in the valley below. Fully aware of the risks, a numerically superior and well-entrenched enemy force, and approaching daylight, without hesitation Senior Chief Slabinski made the selfless and heroic decision to lead the remainder of his element on an immediate and daring rescue back to the mountaintop. Senior Chief Slabinski's team, despite heavy incoming enemy fire, was subsequently successfully inserted on top of Takur Ghar. Senior Chief Slabinski, without regard for his own life, charged directly toward the enemy strongpoint. He and a teammate fearlessly assaulted and cleared one enemy bunker at close range. The enemy then unleashed a murderous hail of machine gun fire from a second hardened position twenty meters away. Senior Chief Slabinski exposed himself to enemy fire on three sides, then moved forward to silence the second position. With bullets piercing his clothing, he repeatedly charged into deadly fire to personally engage the enemy bunker with direct rifle fire, hand grenades and a grenade launcher on the surrounding enemy positions. Facing mounting casualties and low on ammunition, the situation became untenable. Senior Chief Slabinski skillfully maneuvered his team across open terrain, directing them out of effective enemy fire over the mountainside.

Senior Chief Slabinski maneuvered his team to a more defensible position, directed danger-close air support on the enemy, requested reinforcements, and directed the medical care of his rapidly deteriorating wounded teammates, all while continuing to defend his position. When approaching daylight and accurate enemy mortar fire forced the team to maneuver further down the sheer mountainside, Senior Chief Slabinski carried a seriously wounded teammate through waist-deep snow, and led an arduous trek across precipitous terrain while calling in fires on enemies engaging the team from the surrounding ridges. Throughout the next 14 hours, he stabilized the casualties and continued the fight against the enemy until the mountain top could be secured and his team was extracted. His dedication, disregard for his own personal safety and tactical leadership make Master Chief Slabinski unquestionably deserving of this honor.

He is only the 12th living service member to be awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery displayed in Afghanistan. The Medal of Honor is an upgrade of the Navy Cross he was previously awarded for these actions.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=105491
]]>The Whole NewsAdamGhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?27162-POTUS-to-award-MoH-to-Master-Chief-Petty-Officer-(SEAL)-Britt-Slabinski-(USN-Ret)Chinese spies linked to decade-long hacking campaignhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26949-Chinese-spies-linked-to-decade-long-hacking-campaign&goto=newpost
Mon, 07 May 2018 10:49:19 GMTTemporary stand-alone thread until everyone who needs to see this has seen it.

Quote:

China's long-running hacking efforts may be more extensive than first thought. Security researchers at ProtectWise's 401TRG team have determined that a long series of previously unconnected attacks are actually part of a concerted campaign by Chinese intelligence officials. Nicknamed the Winnti umbrella, the effort has been going on since "at least" 2009 and has struck game companies (like Nexon and Trion) and other tech-driven businesses to compromise political targets.

There are common methods and goals to the attacks. They usually start with phishing to trick someone into compromising the company network (often using political bait), and then use a mix of custom and off-the-shelf malware to collect info. They'll often stay undetected by "living off the land" with the victim's own software, such as system admin tools. The intuders are primarily looking for code signing certificates and "software manipulation," according to the report.

The perpetrators also make occasional mistakes, and it's those slip-ups that helped identify the Chinese origins. They normally use command-and-control servers to hide, but they inadvertently accessed some machines using IP addresses from China Unicom's network in a Beijing district.

Even with these mistakes, the Winnti umbrella is an "advanced and potent threat," 401TRG said. It's also a not-so-subtle reminder that China's state-backed hacking efforts are deeper than they seem at first glance -- hacks that appear to be one-off incidents may be linked if you look for subtler similarities.

Original source -> https://arstechnica.com/information-...ligence-group/
]]>The Whole NewsAdamGhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26949-Chinese-spies-linked-to-decade-long-hacking-campaignWe live in an era of implausible deniability and ambiguous warfarehttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26905-We-live-in-an-era-of-implausible-deniability-and-ambiguous-warfare&goto=newpost
Fri, 04 May 2018 17:15:20 GMTInternational Affairs is the Chatham House journal and they have made available for free this article 'Grey is the new black: covert action and implausible deniability' by Professor Richard Aldrich and Dr Rory Cormac, both British academic intelligence historians.

On a very quick read the focus is Anglo-American, although the USSR / Russia gets a mention and I have not looked at the ninety-six references.

If anyone is in Oxford on May 14th Dr Cormac is speaking at a public event (PM for details).

The Abstract, from where the title comes says:

Quote:

For hundreds of years, states have sought to intervene in the affairs of others in a surreptitious manner. Since the professionalization of intelligence services in the aftermath of the Second World War, this behaviour has become known as covert action, which—for generations of scholars—has been defined as plausibly deniable intervention in the affairs of others; the sponsor's hand is neither apparent nor acknowledged. We challenge this orthodoxy. By turning the spotlight away from covert action and onto plausible deniability itself, we argue that even in its supposed heyday, the concept was deeply problematic. Changes in technology and the media, combined with the rise of special forces and private military companies, give it even less credibility today. We live in an era of implausible deniability and ambiguous warfare. Paradoxically, this does not spell the end of covert action. Instead, leaders are embracing implausible deniability and the ambiguity it creates. We advance a new conception of covert action, historically grounded but fit for the twenty-first century: unacknowledged interference in the affairs of others.

Link:https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/94/3/477/4992414
]]>davidbfpohttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26905-We-live-in-an-era-of-implausible-deniability-and-ambiguous-warfareFreedom: The God of Modern War?http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26900-Freedom-The-God-of-Modern-War&goto=newpost
Fri, 04 May 2018 00:06:45 GMT*From Youri Cormier at The Strategy Bridge*: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2018/5/1/freedom-the-god-of-modern-war
*Introduction*:
---Quote---
Freedom. The term is so ubiquitous in its application to war we tend not to ask why that is. We take it as a given. Operation Enduring...From Youri Cormier at The Strategy Bridge: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-br...-of-modern-war

Introduction:

Quote:

Freedom. The term is so ubiquitous in its application to war we tend not to ask why that is. We take it as a given. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are two good examples of how the concept seems encoded into American strategic objectives, yet it is not limited to countries like the U.S. where this idea is so culturally (and constitutionally) central. Crimea was not conquered by Russia, according to Russian claims, but rather the minority Russian population of Ukraine was liberated and given the opportunity for self-determination and to vote in a referendum about their collective future. While this essay will attempt to uncover why freedom appears to stoke the warrior instinct inside of us, doing so would only lead to an impasse, were it not considered within a larger set of questions. As a systematized justification for political violence, freedom was not always so predominant as it is today. Assuming human nature didn’t change over the past few decades, we then need to uncover what did.

My Response:

Cormier refers to the cause of “freedom” as key justifications for the US invasions of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq, as well as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yet is this accurate?

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which enabled military action against Afghanistan as well as various counter-terrorism operations in the Philippines and Africa, did not include any reference to freedom. Indeed, Operation Enduring Freedom was changed from Operation Infinite Justice, which had religious connotations, and the then-President referred to the war effort as both a “Crusade” and a “war on terror”. Nor was freedom “encoded” in the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which only made a reference to mentions of “liberation” in the 1991 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. With regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing freedom to those countries was not a prime mover from either a US legal or US public relations perspective, irrespective of the names of the actual military operations undertaken.

In 2014, Russia made several justifications for invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea, and yet none referred to freedom. On the contrary, Russia invoked the right of self-defense by its nationals in Ukraine – military and civilian – who were claimed to be under threat; separate invitations by the President of Ukraine and Prime Minister of Crimea; the protection of its nationals in Ukraine from threats; and the humanitarian cause of restoring law and order in a failed state. In March 2014, Putin called the action “reunification”, claimed that the “supreme authority” is the will of the Russian people, and defined the Russian people in very broad terms. By any measure, Russian’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 had clear irredentist justifications with some humanitarian trappings to mimic the West’s justifications for intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya.

Cormier refers to the “modern republic” in the context of the French Revolution, and yet in practice the French were hardly as free, equal, and fraternal as the English (under a constitutional monarchy) until 1870, almost a century after the Revolution. Any discussion of freedom as the “God of Modern War” would do well to examine the role of freedom in driving the victorious side in the English Civil Wars, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War, all linked by the key involvement of Puritans. I am reminded of Maj. Gen. Buell’s maxim that: “war has a higher object than that of mere bloodshed”. Such a “higher object” has been a justification for every American war effort from the Civil War to the ongoing counter-terrorism operations, and is mirrored to a lesser extent by the British.

As regards Muslim supremacist terrorism, there are Muslim intellectual and organizational leaders who benefit practically or temporally from leading this cause, not unlike those that propelled Europe’s wars of religion. For the cannon fodder and suicide bombers on the ground, freedom from the struggle of life may well be a prime mover. Islamism today is a revolution to impose and expand power over others with some rather minor references to personal and popular empowerment; National Socialism also portrayed Germans as historical victims while promoting the most severe victimization against non-Germans, and especially “non-Aryans”, as the path to a utopia.

Freedom itself can include mutually-exclusive or competing freedoms, highlighted by Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech in January 1941. At present, there is a popular debate in the United States over whether “freedom of speech” and “freedom from fear” can co-exist; the former is codified in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, while the latter has evolved from “freedom from war” to “freedom from offensive expressions and facts”. As for “freedom from want”, it has been a justification for mass murder and tyranny throughout the 20th Century. Democracies today continue the debate over positive rights and freedoms compared to negative ones. Yet returning to the American Civil War, we see the Union motivated by an abstract and ideal version of freedom (emancipation) against Confederates motivated by real and practical freedom: the expulsion of Union forces and sovereignty from the Union.

Cormier is correct about it being, “a matter of choice to which of these incarnations [of freedom] we pray”. However, I do not believe that he has made his case that, “modern war seems to require freedom to claim its legitimacy”. As the world becomes more multipolar, great powers such as China and Russia may find less and less use for couching their justifications for aggression in Western terms.

]]>Social Sciences, Moral, and ReligiousAzorhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26900-Freedom-The-God-of-Modern-WarA change of scene: CIA officer becomes a cop in Savannahhttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26892-A-change-of-scene-CIA-officer-becomes-a-cop-in-Savannah&goto=newpost
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:17:43 GMTPatrick Skinner is now a patrol cop in his home town and The New Yorker has a 'long read' entitled 'The Spy Who Came Home'. There is a lot within, such as the debacle @ Khost's CIA station and many of the lessons he has learnt.

He Tweeted:

Quote:

Easily the most terrifying thing I’ve ever done. But I wanted to highlight local policing done with a great group of colleagues. But yeah, this is terrifying.

]]>Law Enforcementdavidbfpohttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26892-A-change-of-scene-CIA-officer-becomes-a-cop-in-SavannahShifting Power and Influencehttp://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?26890-Shifting-Power-and-Influence&goto=newpost
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 00:29:49 GMTThe following is an interesting study on how states compare with each other for wielding power and influence over other states globally and regionally. In the conceptualizing influence chapter it states if actor A succeeds in altering actor B's behavior in the desired direction, then A clearly has power over B. I think that a pretty clear metric for assessing relative power.

The study measures the traditional state powers for wielding power: economic, political, and security, but argues the ability to compel or coopt other states to cooperate also depends upon relational power ( includes soft power based on common values and interests), and other factors.

In 1963 the top five countries according to the Global Power Index (GPI):
U.S. 35.5%
USSR 10.2
UK 6.3
France 5.8
W. Ger 5.5

Power and Influence in a Globalized World outlines the strategic framework of the international system's capabilities and interactions amongst the global community. The report shows how power and influence are derived from more than just coercive military capabilities, but are exercised through networks of economic, political, and security interactions involving states as well as non-state actors. The function of this report is to fill in the conceptual and empirical gaps, by creating a new index, the Foreign Bilateral Influence Capacity (FBIC) Index. The FBIC is tasked with identifying the key influencers in the international community, and analyzing those that register above or below their weight in the world, altogether clarifying where the United States and others stand in the international system. The FBIC Index is based on the interaction between states, as well as the relative dependence of one state on another.

The Reverend Jacky Manuputty is still haunted by the blessings he gave Christian fighters during the conflict with Muslims on the Indonesian island of Ambon, almost 20 years ago.
"I never carried a machine gun, but my thoughts, my prayers, my blessings destroyed more than a gun ever could. By blessing them, they came to believe that this was a holy war," he recalls after the Sunday service at his church, the oldest on the island.
Hundreds of child soldiers are believed to have taken part in Indonesia's worst religious conflict, which started in 1999.

The head of the U.S. military's Special Operations Command said Wednesday that Air Force gunships, needed to provide close air support for American commandos and U.S.-backed rebel fighters in Syria, were being "jammed" by "adversaries."

When Army leaders in Europe needed advanced electronic warfare capabilities, they decided they couldn’t wait for years under the current trajectory of the Army’s official program schedule.

Instead, they asked the service to develop a faster solution, one that’s now known as Raven Claw 1 and incorporates facets of the existing program called Electronic Warfare Planning and Management Tool. The latter is a command-and-control planning capability that allows commanders and soldiers to visualize what the effects of electronic warfare will look like in the field on a screen.

By responding to battlefield needs that pop up outside of the traditional acquisition cycle, the Army believes it can accelerate the development of the EWPMT program, and in the process, provide a road map for how the service might improve acquisition.

The Toronto van attack suspect was sexually frustrated and called for a "rebellion" by like-minded men just before he's accused of plowing a rental van into pedestrians, killing 10 people -- including at least one young woman.

Alek Minassian, 25, posted on his personal Facebook page that the “rebellion has already begun” for incels — someone who was involuntarily celibate — and hailed Elliot Rodger, a 22-year-old who killed six people in a 2014 vehicle and shooting rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

After Alek Minassian’s Toronto van rampage that left 10 dead and 15 injured Monday, speculation abounded about his motive. The 25-year-old suspect had not been on the radar of law enforcement, and authorities said the killings “were not national security related.”

Then a Facebook post emerged from what appeared to be Minassian’s account. Posted the day of the attack, it hints at an unsettling motive.

“Private (Recruit) Minassian Infantry 00010, wishing to speak to Sgt 4chan please,” it reads. “C23249161. The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”

At first glance, the language in the post invites a healthy dose of skepticism. Considering the enthusiasm with which internet trolls spin false narratives after a tragedy, this claim was met with caution. But recent reports suggest it is, in fact, authentic. Multiple news outlets say Facebook representatives have confirmed the veracity of the post, and Toronto Police in a press conference today indicated they also believe it is authentic.